Monday, March 31st

• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. through 12:00 p.m.

Tuesday, April 1st

• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Middletown Law Library closes 4:00 p.m.
• New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 2nd

• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.

Thursday, April 3rd

• Waterbury Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is open from 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m.

Friday, April 4th

• New Haven Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
• Torrington Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC44253, AC44254 - Pryor v. Brignole (“These appeals involve a novel issue of statutory interpretation regarding a legal standard for which neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history provides clear resolution. It thus falls to this court to divine, as best we can, the proper construction of that statutory standard, ever mindful that it is the prerogative of our General Assembly to modify, alter, and amend the laws of this state.

In these related appeals, the defendants, Timothy Brignole and the law firm of Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC (law firm), appeal from the judgments of the trial court denying their special motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, in this breach of contract action brought by the self-represented plaintiff, J. Xavier Pryor. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly construed § 52-196a (e) (3) to require a moving party, as part of its initial burden under the first prong of that statute, to admit to engaging in the conduct alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. In response, the plaintiff argues that the alleged conduct did not involve a matter of public concern, as required by § 52- 196a (e) (3), and that the defendants waived their ability to file special motions to dismiss because those motions were untimely. We agree with the defendants that the court improperly interpreted § 52-196a (e) (3) and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46412 - State v. Edwin B. (“The defendant, Edwin B., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56 (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). He claims that the court’s failure to give specific unanimity instructions as to counts one and two violated his right to jury unanimity under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We agree with the defendant that the court’s failure to give specific unanimity instructions violated his right to jury unanimity. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC47204 - Eastern Connecticut Savings Bank v. Venus Developments, LLC ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Venus Developments, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Eastern Connecticut Savings Bank, denying its motion to open the court's judgment of foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open because (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to commence the foreclosure action, (2) the foreclosure judgment improperly included the debt from a second promissory note, which was not part of the complaint and not properly proven, and (3) the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements in Practice Book § 17-22. We agree with the defendant's third claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC47141 - Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Widow(er), Heir(s) and/or Creditors of the Estate of Beryl E. Rowland ("In this action to foreclose a reverse mortgage on real property owned by Beryl E. Rowland (decedent), Trinity Tatiana Pylypczuk and Andrew Bryce Pylypczuk (heirs), who are the decedent's grandchildren, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, Mortgage Assets Management, LLC, formerly known as Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. On appeal, the heirs claim that the court abused its discretion by denying their motion to open without a hearing. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC47391 - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. O'Brien ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Mark E. O'Brien appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering an execution of ejectment with regard to the foreclosed property. The court concluded that the execution of ejectment could issue because all law days had passed during the pendency of the defendant's prior appeal in this matter and no appellate stay was in effect at that time due to a prior trial court order that purportedly had prospectively terminated any existing and future automatic appellate stays in this matter. Therefore, the court determined that title to the foreclosed property and the right of possession had vested in the substitute plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust. The defendant claims that the court misconstrued the prior trial court's order terminating the appellate stay; an appellate stay was in effect when the latest law days passed; and, accordingly, title never vested in the substitute plaintiff, and the execution of ejectment was premature and violated his right to due process. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the defendant, reverse the judgment of the court, and remand the case with direction to vacate the execution of ejectment and to set new law days.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46590 - Bethel Baseball Assn., Inc. v. Dyer ("The self-represented defendant, Kurt R. Dyer, appeals from the judgment, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Bethel Baseball Association, Inc., on its counts alleging conversion and statutory theft. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erroneously concluded that he had committed conversion and statutory theft and (2) abused its discretion by not addressing the plaintiff's failures to properly respond to his discovery requests. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20853 - State v. Petteway (“The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and criminal violation of a standing criminal protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223a. He claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court violated his right to self-representation under the federal and state constitutions. Because the defendant’s conduct functioned as a forfeiture of his right to self-representation, we disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 39, for March 25, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 913 - 913)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 231: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 493 - 632)
• Volume 231: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 903)
• Volume 231: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC20906 - Ammar I. v. Dept. of Children & Families ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the litigation privilege affords absolute immunity to the defendant, the Department of Children and Families, from a claim by the self-represented plaintiff, Ammar I., that the defendant had discriminated against him based on his religion during his termination of parental rights trial. The plaintiff asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the litigation privilege barred his discrimination claim challenging the defendant's improper use of child protection proceedings to alienate him from his children. We conclude that the Appellate Court correctly held that the litigation privilege barred the plaintiff's remaining timely allegations pertaining exclusively to the defendant's actions during his termination of parental rights trial. We nevertheless reverse in part the Appellate Court's judgment to the extent that the court's remand order directed the trial court to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the Appellate Court's judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47852 - In re C. Y. ("The respondent father, Carl Y., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioners, his sister, Cindy W. (Cindy), and her husband, Jacob W. (Jacob), removing the respondent as guardian of his minor child, C. Y., and appointing the petitioners as coguardians of the child. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court abused its discretion in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence to support its finding that the statutory ground for the removal of the respondent’s guardianship rights had been satisfied. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC47764 - In re Isabella S. ("In this child protection matter, the respondent parents, Billie Jean S. and Panyiotis S., appeal from the denial of their application for a writ of mandamus, in which they argued that the Department of Children and Families (department) was not providing their minor child, Isabella S., with appropriate mental health care. They sought an order requiring the department to place Isabella in an appropriate residential treatment setting in accordance with a March 15, 2024 decision issued by a department hearing officer. The respondents claim on appeal that the court (1) misinterpreted the meaning and the finality of the March 15, 2024 decision and (2) improperly concluded that a writ of mandamus was not the proper mechanism for seeking enforcement of the hearing officer’s decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2025 edition of our research guide on Bankruptcy and the Family has been posted to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

Monday, March 24th

• Danbury Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.

Tuesday, March 25th

• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.

Wednesday, March 26th

• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Hartford Law Library will close at 10:45 a.m.
• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 27th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Middletown Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Friday, March 28th

• Danbury Law Library is closed.
• Hartford Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC21055, SC21068 - In re Jewelyette M. ("These appeals concern the legal rights of foster parents to participate, as intervenors or otherwise, in neglect proceedings with respect to the best interest of any child who either is currently living with the foster parents or has been in the foster parents’ care within the year prior to the initiation of any such proceeding. The primary issue before us is whether General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) prohibits foster parents from intervening in the proceedings by conferring on them a limited ‘‘right to be heard and comment’’ in the proceedings. We conclude that the statute does not prohibit a trial court from permitting foster parents to intervene in such proceedings.")

• SC21055, SC21068 Concurrence & Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 First Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 Second Dissent

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46961 - Jackson v. Prince (“The self-represented plaintiff, Nicole C. Jackson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her action against the defendants, Joshua Prince (Joshua), Melinda Prince (Melinda), Amy Zabetakis, and John B. Devine. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Joshua and Melinda on the basis of insufficiency of process and insufficient service of process, (2) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing the action as to Joshua and Melinda, and (3) concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Zabetakis and Devine on the basis of insufficient service of process. We conclude that the court erred in concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Melinda and in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing the action as to Joshua. We also conclude that the court properly dismissed the action as to Devine and Zabetakis. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46853 - Gerald Metals, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at International Underwriting Assn. of London (“This appeal arises from a dispute over whether the plaintiffs, Gerald Metals, LLC, and Gerald Metals S.A., suffered a covered loss to their insured property under the marine cargo insurance policies issued by the defendant insurer, Certain Underwriters at International Underwriting Association of London. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following its granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) determined that the plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of whether the insured property was stolen and/or misappropriated and seized and (2) concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether (a) the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate ‘‘physical loss or damage’’ under the policies and (b) the loss was subject to the policies’ seizure exclusion. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Insurance Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47007 - DiSpazio v. Pacapelli ("The plaintiffs, Paul DiSpazio and Maltby Street, LLC (Maltby Street), appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Eugene Pacapelli and other officers and members of the board of directors of West Cove Marina Coop, Inc. (West Cove), and from its granting of the defendants' motion for sanctions. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the defendants' motion for summary judgment because a release of liability entered into by the plaintiffs for the benefit of West Cove in connection with prior litigation (2015 release) did not preclude the present action; and (2) the defendants' motion for sanctions because the plaintiffs' claims were not without basis in law or fact and the court did not make a requisite finding of bad faith. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46729 - Canady v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal, (2) rejected his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) concluded that his due process claim was procedurally defaulted. We disagree that the court improperly denied the petition for certification and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46974 - Pirri v. Chow ("The substitute defendant, Mong Chin Liu, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Rosaria Pirri, executor of the estate of the plaintiff, Eugenio Pirri, on her claim of adverse possession with respect to a portion of the substitute defendant's property (disputed area). On appeal, the substitute defendant claims that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff adversely possessed the disputed area under a claim of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46582 - State v. Joseph E. (“Following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, entered pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the defendant, Joseph E., appeals from the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 53a-217. The defendant entered his conditional plea following the court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence seized from his home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search warrant application and affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his home and the seizure of his property therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20994 - Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services (“The sole question in this appeal is whether an administrative law judge with the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) has the authority to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits under General Statutes § 31-308 (a) to a claimant who has reached maximum medical improvement and is therefore eligible to receive permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b). The Appellate Court answered that question in the negative. Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 223 Conn. App.221, 242–43, 308 A.3d 550 (2024). We disagree with the Appellate Court and conclude that § 31-308 (b) gives an administrative law judge the discretion to award a claimant, after he or she reaches maximum medical improvement, ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits under § 31-308 (a) in lieu of permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b), up to the statutory maximum of 520 weeks. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 38, for March 18, 2025 is now available.

• Table of Contents
• Volume 351: Connecticut Reports (Pages 488 - 510)
• Volume 351: Orders (Pages 912 - 913)
• Volume 351: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 231: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 280 - 493)
• Volume 231: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
• Volume 231: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions